R. v. Steeves (T.),

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2010 NBCA 57
• Date: 11 May 2010
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

R. v. Steeves (T.) (2010), 360 N.B.R.(2d) 88 (CA);

    360 R.N.-B.(2e) 88; 930 A.P.R. 88

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.018

Renvoi temp.: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.018

Tina Steeves (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(146-09-CA; 2010 NBCA 57)

Indexed As: R. v. Steeves (T.)

Répertorié: R. v. Steeves (T.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A.

May 11, 2010.

Summary:

Résumé:

After resolution discussions between counsel for the Crown and for the accused, the accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000 and breach of an undertaking. Defence and Crown counsel made a joint submission for a total sentence of two years in jail.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court rejected the agreed-upon jail term as "not enough in this case" and sentenced the accused to four years in jail. The accused appealed, with leave.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted the agreed-upon two-year term.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - After resolution discussions between counsel for the Crown and for the accused, the 36 year-old female accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000 and breach of an undertaking - The theft victim was the accused's employer - The fraud victims were the accused's parents - She had defrauded them of $400,000 by telling them that she needed money to stave off (nonexistent) threats of bodily harm to her when, in fact, she used the money to buy drugs - In their victim impact statements, the parents described, often in "poignant" terms, how "their daughter's perfidy devastated them both emotionally and financially" - Defence and Crown counsel made a joint submission for a total sentence of two years in jail - The trial judge rejected the agreed-upon jail term as "not enough in this case" and sentenced the accused to four years in jail - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal substituted the agreed-upon two-year term - The trial judge had been "overwhelmed" by the victim impact statements' "poignant" terms - These terms "overshadowed" the mitigating circumstances - The trial judge did not demonstrate why the agreed-upon jail term was so lenient that its adoption by the court would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest - Victim impact statements could not be allowed to "hijack the process" - The impact of the crime on the victim was but one factor to be considered - See paragraphs 30 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 5834.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Effect on victim (incl. victim impact statements) - [See Criminal Law - 5813 and Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5837

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Mitigating circumstances - After resolution discussions between counsel for the Crown and for the accused, the 36 year-old female accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000 and breach of an undertaking - The theft victim was the accused's employer - The fraud victims were the accused's parents - She had defrauded them of $400,000 by telling them that she needed money to stave off (nonexistent) threats of bodily harm to her when, in fact, she used the money to buy drugs - In their victim impact statements, the parents described, often in "poignant" terms, how "their daughter's perfidy devastated them both emotionally and financially" - Defence and Crown counsel made a joint submission for a total sentence of two years in jail - The trial judge rejected the agreed-upon jail term as "not enough in this case" and sentenced the accused to four years in jail - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal substituted the agreed-upon two-year term, which was made up of 13 months for the fraud, five months consecutive for the theft and one month consecutive for the breach of an undertaking - The trial judge had been "overwhelmed" by the victim impact statements' "poignant" terms - These terms "overshadowed" the mitigating circumstances, which included the guilty plea by a first-time offender, the absence of violence and sophistication, and addiction being the driving force behind the crimes and not greed - See paragraphs 30 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 5854

Sentence - Theft - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5859

Sentence - Fraud - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5892

Sentence - Breach of a restraining order, recognizance or undertaking - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6201

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Powers of appeal court (incl. standard of review) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the standard of appellate review in sentencing matters - See paragraphs 19 to 29.

Droit criminel - Cote 5813

Détermination de la peine - Procédure et droits du prévenu - Marchandage de la peine ou recommandation conjointe - Effet - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5834.2

Détermination de la peine - Facteurs considérés lors de l'inflictin de la peine - Effet sur la victime (y compris les déclarations de la victime) - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5834.2 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5837

Détermination de la peine - Facteurs considérés lors de l'infliction de la peine - Circonstances atténuantes - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5854

Peine - Vol - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5854 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5859

Peine - Fraude - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5859 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5892

Peine - Omission de se conformer à un engagement ou à une promesse - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5892 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 6201

Détermination de la peine - Appels - Modification de la peine - Pouvoirs de la Cour d'appel (y compris la norme de révision) - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 6201 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Verdi-Douglas (2002), 162 C.C.C.(3d) 37 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Guignard (M.) (2005), 282 N.B.R.(2d) 346; 738 A.P.R. 346; 2005 NBCA 35, refd to. [para. 3]; consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Wust (L.W.) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Fice (L.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 742; 333 N.R. 243; 198 O.A.C. 146; 2005 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. LeBlanc (D.) (2005), 279 N.B.R.(2d) 121; 732 A.P.R. 121; 2005 NBCA 6, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Middleton (T.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 674; 388 N.R. 89; 251 O.A.C. 349; 2009 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Sinclair (1972), 6 C.C.C.(2d) 523 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Robillard (1985), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 505 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Amaralik (1984), 57 A.R. 59; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 22 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Drost (L.B.) (1996), 172 N.B.R.(2d) 67; 439 A.P.R. 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Solowan (K.S.T.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309; 381 N.R. 191; 261 B.C.A.C. 27; 440 W.A.C. 27; 2008 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. C.A.C. (2009), 349 N.B.R.(2d) 265; 899 A.P.R. 265; 2009 NBCA 68, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. R.K.J. (1998), 207 N.B.R.(2d) 24; 529 A.P.R. 24 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. LeBlanc (G.A.) (2003), 264 N.B.R.(2d) 341; 691 A.P.R. 341; 2003 NBCA 75, consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Munn (P.J.N.) (2004), 272 N.B.R.(2d) 269; 715 A.P.R. 269; 2004 NBCA 44, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Veysey (J.M.) (2006), 303 N.B.R.(2d) 290; 787 A.P.R. 290; 2006 NBCA 55, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Guay (D.A.) (2008), 337 N.B.R.(2d) 252; 864 A.P.R. 252; 2008 NBCA 72, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Taylor (J.D.), [2009] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Daye (S.W.) (2010), 362 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 934 A.P.R. 1; 2010 NBCA 53, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Douglas (2002), 49 C.R.(5th) 188 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 31].

R. v. R.W.E. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 317; 86 O.R.(3d) 493; 2007 ONCA 461, consd. [para. 32].

R. v. Penny (P.J.D.) (2010), 362 N.B.R.(2d) 255; 934 A.P.R. 255; 2010 NBCA 49, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Gabriel (R.) (1999), 98 O.T.C. 193; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Daley (M.D.) (2002), 255 N.B.R.(2d) 105; 668 A.P.R. 105; 2002 NBQB 393, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Bremner (R.) (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 200; 226 W.A.C. 200; 2000 BCCA 345, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Downey (D.), [2006] O.A.C. Uned. 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 687(1) [para. 20]; sect. 722(1) [para. 34].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario (Attorney General), Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolutions Discussions, Report of.

Nadin-Davis, R. Paul, and Sproule, Clarey B., Canadian Sentencing Digest (2005-2010), generally [para. 41].

Ontario (Attorney General), Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolutions Discussions, Report of (Martin Committee Report) (1994), generally [para. 31].

Ruby, Clayton C., Davies, Breese, Doucette, Delmar, Loosemore, Sarah, Orkin, Jessica, and Wawzonek, Caroline, Sentencing (7th Ed. 2008), p. 643 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Jeffrey L. Mockler, Q.C., for the respondent;

Tina Steeves, appeared in person, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on May 11, 2010, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally on May 11, 2010, with written reasons in both official languages delivered on July 29, 2010, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B.